Why Is South Africa Being Stirred Up?

Since the middle of February, the internal political situation in South Africa has worsened once again. During South African president Jacob Zuma’s annual address to the country’s parliament, the main opposition parties, primarily the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters, became rowdy and delayed the president’s speech for an hour. For security reasons, the parliament building was surrounded not by the police, as it was last year, but by the SADF staff.

The opposition parties know they are not in a position to take power democratically, so the only choice they have is to destabilise the situation in the country. To be more precise, this means provoking bloodshed and seeing it through to a regime change. The actions of the parliamentary Economic Freedom Fighters party – insulting the country’s president or the parliamentary speaker and behaving like clowns – only seem like hooliganism at first glance. In fact, the tactic is intended to bring different segments of the population into conflict with each other and cause riots that will lead to fatalities. In the meantime, the Economic Freedom Fighters have so far done nothing to try and achieve their declared objectives legislatively. One of the main points of their political programme was the nationalisation of land without compensation, but while the Freedom Fighters were raising an uproar, a bill to change the Land Act, which provides for such nationalisation, was put forward by the African National Congress. This initiative of the ruling party led to even more ferocious attacks being launched against it by the Democratic Alliance, which represents the interest of local and transnational monopoly capital.

On 22 February, the High Court of North Gauteng (where the country’s government is located), ruled in the case brought by the Democratic Alliance that South Africa’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is «unconstitutional and invalid». What’s more, the court ordered President Zuma to revoke the notice of withdrawal. Against the backdrop of the recent coup in Gambia, the events in South Africa seem like an attempt, amid instigated large-scale riots, to make the government use force against ‘peaceful protesters’, thereby paving the way for an investigation by the International Criminal Court.

The danger of last year’s pogroms against ‘foreigners’ has come back with a vengeance. On 24 February, large-scale demonstrations were held in a number of cities, including the capital, against immigrants, who then held their own demonstrations in response. Violence was unavoidable. The situation was summed up fairly shrewdly by the leader of the Zimbabwean diaspora in South Africa: «In our view, the xenophobic attacks are well coordinated and political. Opposition parties which are fighting the ANC government want to make South Africa ungovernable and they are mobilising communities to attack foreigners».

Behind this picture is the blatant desire to disrupt the government’s plans outlined in President Jacob Zuma’s address to parliament. These plans include amendments to the law on mineral resources in terms of the State’s right to exercise sovereignty over all the country’s mineral resources, and changes to the racial imbalance within the country’s mining industry. At present, nearly all of the major mining companies are owned by transnational corporations (diamond mining is dominated by De Beers, which is owned by Anglo America plc, and platinum mining is dominated by Anglo Platinum Limited, which is part of Anglo American Platinum Ltd owned by Anglo American plc). The government is planning to pursue direct state involvement in this sector of the economy. A bill on these issues will be introduced into parliament this year.

There are also other plans. An interesting programme is being implemented in South Africa’s agricultural sector to create collective farms. The construction of free housing will continue – more than four million families have already been provided with houses. Nine million households that did not have electricity have now been connected to the grid. Only two of the six million jobs that the government planned to create by March 2019 have so far materialised, but this is also an achievement. A total of seventeen million people, almost one in three, receive social support from the government.

In addition, the government has responded to last year’s mass student protests over the increase in university tuition fees by allocating 32 billion rand to support higher education. This will not solve the problem entirely, but it will allow those less well-off to continue on with higher education.

The bold steps being undertaken by President Jacob Zuma in the social and economic sphere are being reinforced by the pan-African scope of South Africa’s foreign policy. Good examples of this are the plans to create a pan-African free trade zone by merging three regional organisations – the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community (EAC) – and South Africa’s participation in peacekeeping operations in Lesotho, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Mozambique, South Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.

The ruling African National Congress party conference is set to take place at the end of 2017. The ANC will elect its new leader and, by extension, the country’s most likely president (should the ANC win the parliamentary elections). The approach of this political challenge, along with the South African government’s determination to continue along its chosen course, is increasing the anxiety of those who regard what’s going on as a threat to their centuries-old positions – positions that are no longer looking quite so unshakeable.

What the fuck does the author mean, "Why"?! The white nation of South Africa is having a genocide committed on it by (You fucking know who's behind the ANC. Do some research.) globalist jews and anyone who would go against their wishes.

The apartheid government spent 55% of its budget–funded 77% by white taxpayers–on supporting black South Africans. They built the largest hospital in the world, staffed, and kitted it out with the best equipment money could buy, to be better able to provide medical care to the black South African population. They established ten Homelands where blacks could have their own laws, their own businesses, their own schools, their own customs, and their own soldiers and police. All paid for the apartheid government. They were:

Transeki, for the Zhisa

Ciskie, for the Xhosa

Venda, for the Venda

Bophuthatswana, for the Tswana

Gazankulu, for the Tsonga and Shangaan

KaNgwane, for the Swazi

KweNdebele, for the Ndebele

KwaZulu, for the Zulu

Lebowa, for the Pedi

QwaQwa, for the Sotho

70% of South Africa is uninhabitable. Only 10% is under normal climate conditions for economically viable farmland. All of the Homelands were built in areas of South Africa that receive higher than average rainfall. All of the Homelands were created in what were historically tribal lands. Homelands made up 50% percent of the total, livable land in South Africa, not the 13% people like to throw around. Moreover, 20,000 white South Africans were forced to relocate to allow for the creation of the Homelands. The townships are a different story, but lets focus on the one everyone knows, Soweto. Slums and dead bodies and fires and poverty, right? Well, it’s worth noting that townships were essentially non-Homeland squatter camps. And after a while, the white South Africans started building roads and providing some civil services to those illegal, unzoned, unsanctioned camps. But that’s not enough, right?

~:~

Johannesburg was founded by Boers when they discovered gold there. It wasn’t just gold, though; it was an entire massive mountain of gold underground they’re still mining out today. Johannesburg is extremely rich in various minerals. The cay was overwhelmingly white with the exception of various mixed-race Afrikaans-speaking servants of the Boers. The Boers formed the majority of miners through the 19th into the early/middle of the 20th century when blacks were coming to the city to work on the mines and pushing whites out.

South Africa’s demographic history works like this: in 1800, there were 30,000 white people in the lands that became South Africa. There were 3,000,000 people total, meaning that whites were 1% of the population–those of mixed race or random natives who lived in the Cape Town colony with the whites were, respectively, 0.5%. 98% of the population of what was to become South Africa was comprised of black Bantu spread thinly over a country with the land area of Italy, France, and Germany combined. Even today, there are 210,000,000 people in those countries and only 54,000,000 in modern South Africa, giving you an idea of how sparsely that country is populated.

Shaka Zulu formed the Zulu Empire and started massacring all rival kingdoms for land. No slaves were taken, just outright genocide to expand the power and land under the control of the Zulu Empire. This caused the death and flight of 1,000,000 Bantu out of South Africa. The emptying of South Africa and the oppression of British rule caused the Bores to migrate out into the empty lands outside the Cape to find a new country in which to settle. This was called the Great Trek. Occasionally the whites fought the blacks, and the Zulu in particular tried to genocide the Boers.

As a result of all this, the black population actually increased from 3,000,000 to around 3,500,000 by 1900, only because of the mass deaths during the 1800s when the Boer increased from 30,000 to 700,000 and 300,000 British colonists joined them (for a total of 1,000,000 whites), dominating large cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfountain, and others. Indians were brought in by the British to come into the cities and farms to work because the blacks refused to leave their traditional homelands after being conquered. Indians and mixed people together numbered about 500,000, and the total South African population was about 5,000,000. The Indians and mixed people made up 90% of non-whites in urban and suburban South Africa at this point. The Bantu–blacks–lived on their traditional lands, frankly being useless.

Johannesburg was entirely the work of whites, and it wasn’t until the 1920s that blacks realized that you can buy things like alcohol and tobacco using money, and so they began to compete with white men for mining jobs, leading to race riots and whites briefly staging a communist uprising to ensure their job security against blacks. In the 1940s when 200,000 men enlisted in the military (10% of the total white population and 20% of all men) along with several tens of thousands of Indian and mixed race South Africans. A smaller number of urbanized blacks went to India and Europe to fight the Italians, Japanese, and Germans, which resulted blacks from the homelands migrating into white towns in large numbers for work, undoubtedly creating a few more mixed South Africans via the rape of unprotected white women.

Essentially, 60% of the population of South Africa was black and more than 75% was non-white. This hadn’t been a problem before, because the areas outside the homelands largely lacked blacks, and thus South Africa was, for all intents and purposes, a white country. The fact that millions of blacks in the country now appeared posed to flood into the cities and drown the white parts of South Africa in numbers was what caused the rise of apartheid and the harsh laws dictating that blacks could not legally live outside the black homelands unless the government gave them a pass to do so. Later, because foreign countries objected to keeping blacks locked up on black farms, this evolved into the idea of taking the black homelands, adding more land to them, and giving them independence. This was called Grand– or Greater Apartheid.

As a result of this–and the tendency of blacks to ignore laws–they kept flooding into white areas anyway (Why didn’t they build walls around the homelands to keep them in?!) and created Soweto–the Southwest Townships–which became the largest “black city” (it was an illegal slum) right outside of Johannesburg proper. Everything in Johannesburg was the work of whites. The blacks are the same as the Mexicans who think, “Hey, whitey built this cool thing–I’m a moron who can’t do things for myself–so I’ll just go over there and use his thing.” The difference between Mexicans and blacks is that there are about 11,000,000 illegal Mexicans and anchor babies in the US, 7,000,000 legal Mexican immigrants, Mexicans who got amnesty in the 1980s, and the children of legals and amnestied Mexicans, totaling ~18,000,000 people born in Mexico (or with a parent there born) in the USA. There are 40,000,000 or more blacks in South Africa, who outnumber the whites more than 8:1.

~:~

It is difficult to state the truth about our doings in South Africa without seeming to appeal to the ignominious passion of Judenhetze (Jew-baiting). Nevertheless a plain account of the personal and economic forces operative in the Transvaal is essential to an understanding of the issue, and must not be shirked. A few of the financial pioneers in South Africa have been Englishmen, like Messrs. Rhodes and Rudd ; but recent developments of Transvaal gold-mining have thrown the economic resources of the country more and more into the hands of a small group of international financiers, chiefly German in origin and Jewish in race. By superior ability, enterprise, and organization these men, out-competing the slower-witted Briton, have attained a practical supremacy which no one who has visited Johannesburg is likely to question.

It should be distinctly understood that the stress which my analysis lays upon the Jew has reference to the class of financial capitalists of which the foreign Jew must be taken as the leading type. Before I went there, the names of Beit, Eckstein, Bamato, &c., were of course not unknown to me; the very ship in which I crossed bore many scores of Jewish women and children. But until I came to examine closely the structure of industry and society upon the Rand I had no conception of their number or their power. I thus discovered that not Hamburg, not Vienna, not Frankfort, but Johannesburg is the New Jerusalem.

Although their strength does not really consist in numbers, the size of the Hebrew population is very considerable. Public statistics are most deceptive in this matter ; many of these persons rank as British subjects by virtue of a brief temporary sojourn in some English-speaking land, and as for names. Smith, Newman, Phillips, Gordon, Bruce are just as good as Marks or Cohen, and are often preferred. So the census of Johannesburg, taken in July 1896, only recognizes 6253 Jews. But while the total population of Johannesburg has probably not increased since that date, it is generally agreed that the Jewish population is very much larger. A well-informed Jew, drawing his conclusion from synagogic and other private sources, told me there must be at least 15,000 Jews in Johannesburg and the district. The evidence of the directory, borne out by the casual testimony of the streets, would lead me to believe this an under, rather than an over, estimate.

The great majority are undoubtedly Russian, Polish, and German Jews (commonly classed under the generic title of "Peruvian "), who ply the business of small shopkeepers, market salesmen, peddlers, liquor dealers, and a few rude handicrafts. These are everywhere to be seen, actively occupied in small dealings, a rude and ignorant people, mostly fled from despotic European rule, and contrasting sharply with their highly intelligent, showy, prosperous brethren, who form the upper crust of Johannesburg society. It is with the latter we are directly concerned if we would understand the economic and political import of the present movements. It is not too much to say that this little ring of international financiers already controls the most valuable economic resources of the Transvaal.

The first and incomparably the most important industry, the gold-mines of the Rand, are almost entirely in their hands. The following brief enumeration of the leading companies, which represent the recent consolidation of many mining interests, will serve to show the extent of their power. First comes Wemher, Beit & Co., more commonly known by the name of the managing director as the "Eckstein Group." This comprises twenty-nine mines and three other financial businesses. The nominal capital is £18,384,567, but the market value at the beginning of August 1899 was over £76,000,000. This Eckstein Group is the leading member of a larger, effective combination, which includes, for most practical purposes, the Consolidated Goldfields, S. Neumann & Co., G. Farrar and A. Bailey. Of these, the largest is the Goldfields (virtually Beit, Rudd, and Rhodes), with nineteen mines, and a nominal capital of £18,120,000. Next in size comes Neumann, with a capital of £8,806,500. In more separate working, but virtually under the same ulti- mate control, are two other important groups of mines, largely repositories of German capital, Goetz & Co. and Albu & Co. The financial connection, according to my information, consists in the fact that Brassey, representing Rothschild, has a controlling interest in Goetz & Co., while Albu & Co. have behind them the Dresdener Bank. Now Rothschild stands for the Exploration Company, which is in effect Wemher, Beit, and Rothschild, while Wemher and Beit are believed to be large owner of the Dresdener Bank. These statements are made to me on evidence which I am naturally unable to check, but I believe them to be correct, and even if only approximately true, they indicate a close consolidation of the greater part of the Rand mining industry. Outside of them, the chief businesses are J. B. Robinson, with nineteen mines, and other estates at a nominal capital of £14,317,500 and the less important Bamato firm. It is also well to bear in mind that Wemher, Beit, Rudd, and Rhodes, Bamato, and Rothschild are associated as chief owners and life governors of De Beers.

The last few years have seen large steps towards a consolidation of the entire industry under the supremacy of Eckstein, the chief instrument of which is the Chamber of Mines. The primary object of the Chamber, started by Eckstein in 1889, was to secure returns of output, wages, &c., from the various companies, and soon most of the leading companies, with the exception of Robinson, joined it. Robinson, followed by the now rising French and German companies, formed in 1895 the Association of Mines, which was in effect a rival combination. Hostilities were maintained until 1898, when Goetz and Albu were forced back into the Chamber, which has since attained a paramountcy that extends not only to the mining industry, but widely controls the industrial and indirectly the political life of Johannesburg, forming the nucleus of a monopoly which may become to the Rand what De Beers has been for some years to Eimberley. This, however, is not the place to discuss the present and probable future of the power possessed by the Chamber, and Messrs. Eckstein, who actually wield it. This brief sketch is only designed to indicate the dominance of international finance over the vast industry whose capital had recently a normal value of some £150,000,000, and which is and will remain the great source of wealth in the Transvaal. It is, I think, correct to say that the destiny of almost all these leading companies is controlled by foreign financiers. There is, moreover, no reason to believe that the capital thus wielded is chiefly owned by English shareholders. Though no means of close calculation exists, there is good reason to suppose that the French and German holdings, taken together, largely outweigh the English interest in Rand mines.

But while the power of this capitalism is based on gold, it is by no means confined to it. Whatever large or profitable interest we approach, we find the same control. The interests are often entirely severed from, and even hostile to, the mining industry, but they are in the hands of the same class. This is the case with the dynamite monopoly. Every name connected with the present and past of this scandalous economic episode is significant: Lippert, Lewis and Marks, Vorstmann, Phillip, Nobel. The rich and powerful liquor trade, licit and illicit, is entirely in the hands of Jews, from the supreme control of the liquor kings, Messrs. Lewis and Marks, down to the nmning of the meanest Elaffir bar. That greatest of gambling instruments, the in Stock Exchange, is, needless to say, mostly Jewish. The large commercial businesses are in the same hands, in particular the important trade in horses, and other highly speculative businesses. The press of Johannesburg is chiefly their property: they control the organs of Outlander agitation on the one hand, the Star and the Leader, while the Government organ, the Standard and Diggers News, is under similar control. Nor has the Jew been backward in developing those forms of loan and mortgage business which have made his fame the world over. A rich and ably organised syndicate exists which operates through branches in all the little towns, lending sums of money or furnishing credit through retail shops, which they control, to the neigh- bouring Boers, and thus obtaining mortgages upon their farms. I am informed that a very large proportion of the Transvaal farmers are as entirely in the hands of Jewish money-lenders as is the Russian moujik or the Austrian peasant. No one who knows the fluctuating and precarious character of Transvaal agriculture will feel surprised that the Boer should succumb to thia common temptation set so carefully in his path.

It thus appears that the industrial and agricultural future of the Transvaal is already hypothecated to this small ring of financial foreigners, who not merely own or control the present values, but have, by buying up mining properties and claims of a contingent future value, secured an even more complete supremacy over the economic future. The Transvaal is a country especially adapted to the money-lender and the stock-jobber, a land of hazards and surprises, booms and slumps, where the keen-sighted speculator and the planner of bold complex combinations has unrivaled opportunities.

Dull and depressed as was Johannesburg when I visited it, the savour of gambling was in the air. Though talk of stocks and shares was in abeyance, not so the gambling side of sport. One final testimony to the supreme genius of the European speculator stood plastered upon every wall. Sweepstakes upon races are in Johannesburg not a casual caprice of a sporting few, but an important, well-organized, and enduring trade, supported apparently by a very large proportion of the men, and even the women, of the place. A “sweep” upon a single race meeting often amounts to ;£120,000 or £150,000, a sufficient evidence of the popularity of the demand, which extends to every class of the community. This novel industry owes its local origin to a Jew known by the name of Phillips, who kept a bar in Johannesburg. Phillips runs four big “sweeps” every year and a score of little "sweeps," which are advertised on every wall and by copious handbills. The business basis of the "sweep" is that prizes shall cover 90 per cent, of the money subscribed, the other 10 per cent, going to cover expenses of management and profits. The "industry," I am told, is a most remunerative one. Phillips has now a good handful of competitors: the names of Moss, Legate, Hess, and Herff stare upon you from the back of every newspaper. It is needless to dwell on the demoralizing influence of this great and growing gambling trade. Its success is alike indicative of the place and of the people that control it.

The practical paramountcy exercised by financiers, the recognized leaders of whom are foreign Jews, over the economic interests of the Transvaal, extends also to the social and the recreative side of Johannesburg life. Many of the recognized leaders of society are Jewish. The newspapers of September 13 contained the announcement: "There will be no performance at the Empire (music-hall) to-day by reason of the Jewish Day of Atonement." The Stock Exchange was also closed upon that day. When the British arms have established firm order, this foreign host will return with enhanced numbers and increased power. During the distress of last autumn they bought up, often for a song, most of the property and businesses that were worth buying, and as soon as & settlement takes place, they will start upon a greatly strengthened basis of possession. It may be said, granting this story of a Jewish monopoly of the economic power is true, it does not justify the suggestion that the political power will pass into their hands, and that there will be established an oligarchy of German Jews at Pretoria.

But a little reflection shows that while this class of financiers has commonly abstained in other countries from active participation in politics, they will use politics in the Transvaal. They have found the need for controlling politics and legislation by bribery and other persuasive arts hitherto: the same need and use will exist in the future. Politics to them will not merely mean free trade and good administration of just laws. Transvaal industry, particularly the mining industry, requires the constant and important aid of the State. The control of a large, cheap, regular, submissive supply of labour, the chief comer-stone of profitable business, will be a constant incentive to acquire political control : railway rates, customs’ laws, and the all-important issues relating to mineral rights, will force them into politics, and they will apply to these the same qualities which have made them so successful in speculative industry. In a word, they will simply and inevitably add to their other businesses the business of politics. The particular form of government which may be adopted will not matter very much. Government from Downing Street may perhaps hamper them a little more than the forms of popular representative government; but the judicious control of the press and the assistance of financial friends in high places will enable them to establish and maintain a tolerably complete form of boss-rule in South Africa.

A consideration of these points throws a clear light upon the nature of the conflict in South Africa. We are fighting in order to place a small international oligarchy of mine-owners and speculators in power at Pretoria. Englishmen will surely do well to recognize that the economic and political destinies of South Africa are, and seem likely to remain, in the hands of men most of whom are foreigners by origin, whose trade is finance, and whose trade interests are not chiefly British. If all I say be true, it gives no ground for any final judgment on the merits of the war. This international oligarchy may be better for the country and for the world than the present or any other rule ; and England may be performing a meritorious world-service, in establishing it. But it is right for us to understand quite clearly what we are doing.

Hobson, John Atkinson. The War In South Africa: Its Causes And Effects. Macmillian, New York. 1900. pp.189-197.

Thanks, Tallest Skil. One of the cases where the comments section contains real information while the article is plain FUD and propaganda. Zuma, the degenerated ANC and the "Democratic Alliance, the EFF and the IFP are collectively ruining whatever is left of what so far was Africas only real bright spot. Following down the new apartheid, this time against the whites will end in total desaster. What for did mandela fight? His successors are squandering and ruining his legacy. so sad.

"An interesting programme is being implemented in South Africa’s agricultural sector to create collective farms."(Starvation), fify.. The collectivist idiots and their sycophants never internalize the tragedy of the commons and are so doomed to starve.

One of the first things to come to mind when hearing “Amerikaner” will obviously be the Afrikaners. Soon after that will be an objection to naming ourselves after a people that has lost control of their country and is currently being genocided. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that is us.

The parallels between Boers and Amerikaners are fascinating, but the divergences speak in our favor. Both nations colonized a continent and fought the British, though we were more clearly victorious and maintained our independence. Both nations have a long, storied history with Black Africans. And while Boers directly fought their Blacks, Amerikaners more or less kept them in line and so far have not been forced to relinquish private property to them as Afrikaners have. Boers and Amerikaners are also both historically Protestant nations that maintain a spirit of rugged individualism and enthusiasm for firearms as part of their defining national character. In fact, according to Wikipedia,

"The Boers of the frontier were known for their independent spirit, resourcefulness, hardiness, and self-sufficiency, whose political notions verged on anarchy but had begun to be influenced by republicanism. Most of the men were also skilled with the use of guns as they would hunt and also were able to protect their families with them."

Perhaps the most important similarity between our two nations is that we were both subverted by Jews. However, again, Amerikaners remain in a more advantageous situation than our Boer counterparts. In much the same way that they were involved in the American “Civil Rights” movement and the promotion of anti-White propaganda in American media, Jews played a leading role, globally and within, in the ending of South African apartheid. The infamous photo of Nelson Mandela and Yossel “Joe” Slovo standing together with fists raised in front of the Communist flag is representative of just how far the partnership between Jews and the revolutionary ANC government went in South Africa.

Being a White farmer in South Africa is statistically one of the most dangerous jobs on Earth, and you’re twice as likely to be murdered as a White farmer than as a police officer in South Africa. The rate of murder victimization for commercial farmers in South Africa is an astounding 290 per 100 000—to put things in perspective, the murder rate in Detroit for 2015 was 44 per 100 000.

Norman finally turns her thesis on its head. She recounts a discussion with Hermann Giliomee, a liberal Afrikaner academic, in which she asks him how long his people will survive. He responds by asking her whether the Swedes will survive in the long run, and she admits she is thrown by his question, but takes his point.
So by the end of this surprising book, Norman has set up the precariousness of the Afrikaner as a model for all the nations in the world which counter their low birth rates and ageing populations with mass immigration. The question is no longer can the Afrikaner survive, but can we?

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.

"The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian."
--Miriam Faine, editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat

Mandela was a murdering communist terrorist, but he still couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Begin and the Irgun. But thats hardly a surprise since he was trained by the them.

One of the problems there is what I will call the "my blacks" syndrome. This is when a white says that blacks aren't the problem because "our blacks" are good. So because the housekeeper or gardener are polite and helpful the whites who employ them assume that there isn't a problem with them as a race. Big mistake.

I met this charming southern belle from New Orleans a while back who knew nothing about her Confederate ancestors, but carried on about how great "their" blacks were and how it was blacks from up north that were the problem. The way things are going she will probably end up like South African farmer.

Yes the "Our blacks are good" I've seen that happen in Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa, over and over again. One SA fellow was a "Liberal" until he noticed the 2 male servants/workers at his house had accidentally left a knife in his car. And it shook him, and so he went home and started checking the food and so forth and noticed that a LOT was missing. He then fired the lot of them male and female both, and realized how LUCKY he was to be alive and his wife not raped. Because whether in Kenya or the Rhodesian-South African situation it was always the trusted Mammy or beloved worker who led the terrorists into the house and took part in the savagery.

The violent eviction of yet another white farmer from a farm in Zimbabwe has proceeded without a murmur of protest from any of the world’s governments—in contrast to their hysterical response to any act which can be used to condemn whites.

Some would suggest that Rankin—who started farming six years after Mugabe took power, and, like the first white farmer to be murdered in 2000, appeared to have been a supporter of the new regime in that country—has now been faced with the inevitable consequences of a policy which he endorsed and underpinned for so long.

However, the real issue at stake in Zimbabwe is the fact that a black government can enact openly anti-white racially based measures—including murder—and escape even the slightest condemnation from the US and UK governments.

This behavior is in strong contrast to their policy toward the nations of Rhodesia and South Africa when they were under white control. Although none of the former white governments enacted policies anywhere near to what Mugabe has enforced, both those nations were subjected to sanctions and often military threats.

This book is still, for now, available at Amazon or you can use the link and get a free online text:

The modern democracies of the West, with their philosophies of the stomach and the stock exchange, cannot inspire the people nor protect them. They despise nationhood and despise race. But without our national and racial backbones how shall we stand erect? With quicksands as our foundation how shall we build? How shall we be true to ourselves if we have no selves? Our race is what we are; it is our form. It is our fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and wives and children. They are the race. How then shall we count it of little worth? Shall we despise our own flesh and blood? Is that what modern democracy is supposed to mean? Is that what Christianity is supposed to mean?

Indeed, as an American woman pointed out, if the racial proportions in the United States were reversed, so that the whites formed only ten percent of an otherwise completely coloured nation, no one would expect white parents to insist on the right of their children to attend coloured schools. No, certainly they would not; because for one thing there would not be any white people left at all. They would be massacred to the last man, woman and child.

Thanks for making this available. Europeans are going to go through this lesson as we speak. It will only get worst there with no end in sight. Transplantation does not work in certain situations (cultures).

Glad you mentioned Rhodesia. I was going to add it, but the post got fairly long already.

Rhodesia was quite possibly the most prosperous African nation of its time and well on its way to an egalitarian society in which educated whites and blacks shared in the role of government. It had the highest literacy rate of any African nation, the lowest poverty rate among both whites and blacks, and did not have apartheid laws like South Africa at the time, meaning that any white or black citizen with enough education could vote and take on governmental roles. Schools were free, healthcare was readily available and affordable for all, and what’s more, the Rhodesian government worked hand in hand with the tribal councils to not only ensure that the indigenous tribes had a say in government but that their centuries-old ways of life would not be forcibly changed in the name of “progress”.

Where it all went wrong was with the UK thinking that what worked for them on their little island would work for all the colonies, as well. They believes that simply handing over control of a partially developed nation to a governmentally underdeveloped people wouldn’t cause an immediate upheaval in that country’s socioeconomic well-being. Rhodesians had seen what happened in Kenya and other postcolonial majority-rule countries (i.e., rape, murder, looting, and economic collapse) and not want that to happen to them. This is whites AND blacks.

So, to avoid the inevitable upheaval they saw coming should the British hand over the country to the masses, the Rhodesians (black and white) got behind the Rhodesian Front party, led by Ian Smith. This angered the British to no end, because despite their agreement to grant independence, they wanted it to be on ‘majority rules’ terms. Rhodesia’s hand was forced for another reason. When the British abandoned their colonies to home rule, a power vacuum was created that rapidly filled with communist subverts from the USSR and China. The same happened in Portuguese Mozambique and Angola. In fact, Mugabe and Nkomo (the two terrorist leaders of the two “liberation armies”) were already well-versed and backed by the USSR, China, and their satellites (North Korea and Cuba) with training, indoctrination, and weapons.

As such, Rhodesia knew they would immediately enter a conflict with what were ultimately outside forces, but at least they’d have a strong central government. Then the US stepped in. For two reasons: first, to shift the focus away from our own racial issues, and second, to ensure that our allies in South Africa maintained a grip on the power of southern Africa. The US and UK refused to recognize the independence of Rhodesia and agreed with the communists to blockade the government there from receiving arms or monetary aid. This, of course, didn’t stop the communists from sending weapons to their terrorists, and Rhodesia continued to receive funding through South Africa and Portugal (until it pulled out of Mozambique). We even continued funding them via the RSA and through purchases of chrome.

Meanwhile, without outside aid, Rhodesia was essentially surrounded by African nationalist groups funded by the USSR and China. These terrorists groups controlled tribal lands, conscripted men at gunpoint, and murdered their families if they refused. These men only fought halfheartedly against the Rhodesians, continuing raids on outlying farms and farmers. The murders of the Viscounts, as well as the toll being taken on the youth of Rhodesia, was unsustainable after a decade of fighting. Ian Smith’s government won all the battles–every single last engagement went the way of the Rhodesian forces–but they lost the war of attrition. Finally, international pressure forced the RSA to stop supplying Rhodesia with arms, and they were forced to establish a new government for a new country called “Rhodesia-Zimbabwe”.

Rhodesia-Zimbabwe would have worked very well. The government was elected universally by white and black citizens, and the educational restraints on voting were lifted for universal suffrage. Whites and blacks were voted into office, but that wasn’t good enough for the British. The US and UK refused to recognize the elected government of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe unless Mugabe and Nkomo were allowed to participate (even though they and their armies had renounced citizenship). In the end, the government had to accede and Mugabe moved his army in and forced people to vote for him at gunpoint. He won in a landslide, imposed communist rule, and… didn’t become a dictator immediately. Rhodesia limped along for nine years until Mugabe decided the free market was a good thing and lifted socialist and communist restrictions on trade.

After that, it was like the Roaring Twenties in Zimbabwe. Whites and blacks were educated, they prospered, and they were a net exporter of food. But Mugabe’s hangers-on were dissatisfied that they weren’t living in the palaces they imagined, and thus they gathered their troops and marched on Harare to demand compensation for their effort during the war. Mugabe started taking farms from people who knew what they were doing, divided them up, and gave them to his ex-soldiers. He then started persecuting successful whites and anyone who spoke out against his decisions.

Ultimately, Mugabe ran the country into the ground. He had white farmers either murdered or run out of the country, and he cleansed the Matabele people from his rival army during the war. Now anyone who opposes him risks being thrown into prison or worse. Roy Bennet, for example, has spent more years in prison in Zimbabwe than out. He’s currently in exile in the RSA, doing what he can. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, had some control over the government for roughly four years, but Mugabe kept stealing elections and forced Tsvangirai into exile again. When Tsvangirai was in power, the government’s ability to print money was shut down. Zimbabwe now uses the US Dollar and the Euro. This helped combat the ventihyperinflation facing the country. It also helped get the healthcare system back on track and began to tackle the AIDS epidemic that Mugabe refuses to acknowledge.

To actually fix anything, even after Mugabe’s death, the RSA or UN would have to impose change, but they’re milquetoasts–unwilling to go against the African Union, comprised mostly of dictators. Zambia and Botswana are luring the few remaining white Zimbabweans away with promises of land grants and assistance in setting up farms and plantations in their countries.

~:~

Around 1989, a lot of people started leaving. A lot of the experienced civil servants that ran the country prior to black rule were being sacked and replaced with patronage positions. This was consistent whether the individual being replaced was black or white, because to the victor goes the spoils. At least we still had running water, electricity that was consistent, and the roads were being maintained. However one could tell it was not going to last.

I left in 1994, when things started to go downhill. The blackouts started happening. The electricity board was inexplicably losing funds. Next was the water supply; leaks were springing up, and instead of being fixed, they were left. This caused places that were high up to lose pressure, and thus water altogether. People had to drill bore holes (if they lived in an area with ground water), and get their water from there. This, of course, affected farming, the mainstay of our economy. Reservoir maintenance completely stopped, and because the complainers were white farmers they were ignored or pillared in the media, which was showing signs of becoming highly centralized and controlled. Next, the telephone lines and sewage stopped working. The sewage system needed spare parts, but funds were missing. Telephone lines were being stolen and not replaced. Once again, missing funds. The rains of 1990 I remember being bad, causing huge potholes in the road. Normally this would have been fixed in short order, but, again, the money was being stolen and there no money existed for the roads. To put this in context, the streets and roads of Salisbury (now Harare), used to be washed with water, every morning at around 5am. In a landlocked country. In Africa.

Now when I go, I see Africans in the capital trying to wash their clothes in puddles in the street.

~:~

I visited Zimbabwe for work in 2005 or thereabouts and got accosted by blacks begging for jobs. They told us clearly that they wanted whites back because whites brought jobs. At the same time, they seemed upset that whites owned farms and said we should start up industries instead so they blacks could get good jobs in factories. I was very pleased to leave. It was sad, because wherever you went you could see vestiges of what the country had once been. You’d see large abandoned farms in the distance, surrounded by huts and shanties (the whites had left and the blacks had tried to farm the land but didn’t understand how).

In the cities, you’d see large 1960s and ‘70s-era buildings that must have been impressive office developments once, but now looked dilapidated and had broken windows. You’d see large houses with old swimming pools, broken windows, and collapsed roofs that had been taken over by armies of black squatters who lived one family to a room and used the pool as a communal toilet. These things were much worse than the shanty towns because they were evidence of a societal breakdown. A shanty town is just a collection of poor people living in crappy improvised housing. What we saw in Zimbabwe was a place that had once been prosperous, beautiful, and safe but which had been turned into a living hell.

The sad thing is that the blacks didn’t understand why things were that way. One of them told me that they had no electricity because the white man was cruel and had switched it off. Another told me that they used to have clean water but the white man poisoned it and that’s why they got sick. The HIV/AIDS conspiracy theories were everywhere and all revolved around whitey. They couldn’t understand the concept of power stations, water treatment facilities, or sewers. They barely grasped that cars need petrol.

Well thank you for your contribution. I am dealing with a crappy keyboard because our new puppy chewed up the power cable to my laptop and I am using an old 11" travel computer with a horrible keyboard. It is torture. I much prefer a long coherent post to someone who gets the first comment and writes some 5 word drivel like "good" or "first".

Any review of modern history demonstrates Ian Smith accurately predicted exactly what would happen after he left office.

Zim has been a perpetual embarrassment to the entire western "liberal" political establishment as proof-positive that their theories of the benefits of majority rule don't have much traction in tribal societies which have always competed with each other by conquest and enslavement rather than by negotiated political accommodation.

The same forces which brought about the calamity of Zim (and now bearing the same fruit in SA) are still on the march against western (which is to say predominantly white) cultures and their governments.

It appears to be forgotten that the founders of the US constitution feared "democracy" more than monarchy. They had good reason, based on the long historical experience of mankind, world-wide.

I turned my back on South Africa and denounced my citizenship. That is how desapointed I was in what my homeland had become. But now I look at Europe, and this same process is being perpetuated there with Muslims. It's a white genocide across the world. I realise now we won't eventually have anywhere to run away to, if we continue down this path. What makes me more angry is stupid uneducated one-sided articles like this. Or whites who accept the whole "white" privilege tag. Or whites who support the breakdown of Western civilization. The rate we're going all we will be left with is Australia, Russia and possibly America if Trump can do anything about it.

That seems to be what "they" do best... stir shit up among the natives in societies built by white people. They're a disgusting lot and must be dealt with in some way. How the hell do we perform this necessary task?

There is no point in pushing the idea that South Africa is a multi-culti success story, any more than the murders of Saddam and Ghaddafi were democratic success stories.

If the cultures are incompatible there will be friction, chaos, conflict, and eventually carnage.

The current socio-political climate in South Africa would suggest to any whites with the financial means to move to Australia, New Zealand, America, east/west Europe, or Russia while they still have the luxury of looking at destination options.

Even Asia or parts of the Middle East would be a better place to put down roots.

Those whites without the financial means should be thinking and leaving even faster because if events turn violent they will be isolated targets without options.

"suggest to any whites with the financial means to move to Australia, New Zealand, America, east/west Europe"

Australia? Canada? Give me a fucking break, their citizens have even less brain soveriegnty than US sheeple. Until the stupid goy wake up then all these countries are merely white genocide sites with slightly different timelines. It is really quite simple: Become a shabbez goy and let your grandkids be stupid mulattos corrupt like Obama and Holder or do as Hitler said:

“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”

Canada, a "white genocide site!" LMFAO! Here in Toronto I am so deeply threatened by all these highly skilled Chinese and Eastern European immigrants /sarc. Best thing that ever happened - import some entrepeneurial spirit. Lots of very pretty women as well ....

you are obviously a threatened white man talking about S Africa like it is in danger of being pulled down by a proud noble race who are merely trying to bring back the greatness of African culture and civilization. Let's not forget that civilization began in Africa as was clearly shown on PBS last month during its Black History series.

Now, in retaliation for telling the truth, Donald Trump wants to cut all funding to PBS and theNational Endowment for the Arts. When are we going to recognize all the major dare I say primary contributions that Black people have given to this country? /s

Anyone of European descent who hasn't left yet or isn't arranging to leave asap, has no clue and no plan. It's five past twelfe over there. Africa ia lost continent, today more than it has ever been. So sad and painful to watch.

It's not that they have no plan to leave, they are not ALLOWED to leave. If one person from a white family gets a visa to travel abroad, other members of that family will be denied them. Those who do flee are not allowed to take any of their resources with them. No western country recognizes white South Africans as refugees, so they get no support from anywhere.

I had not heard that they had implemented Soviet style emigration controls. In truth though, if one wants to drop US cititzenship then one is "deemed to have died" on the date of expatriation and must pay inheritance taxes even though he is still alive.

On a happier note, I read somewhere that Putin was going to allowing visa free travel from SA, and the thinking was that he wants to get all those Boers and SA whites to emmigrate to Russia...

From what I have seen from afar is that Russia is pretty backward outside the metro areas and even those in many areas aren't that top notch. Since the fall of the USSR and the rise of Putin Russia is modernizing fast due to it's people and their attitude. The image of the Russian male always drunk on Vodka and dead by 50 is going by the wayside quickly. One gets the impression that Russia is the new wild west with boundless opportunities and on track to do great things. Even after years of the US keeping modern western technology out of Russia they have managed a lot on their own and many claim their military tech tops everyone elses. With the prospects in Russia and with all the Russian bashing going on one would expect young educated Russians to stay put instead of leaving. Russian birth rates are also up and if they encourage whites to immigrate Russia has a bright future. Thus another reason for the US to try and destroy it.

They used to call it the "black continent" because it was unexplored and nobody in the Western world knew what was there. Now that it's been fully explored it's still called the "black continent," just for a different reason.

But to be honest, we live with trouble all day, we are used to it. That is the spice of life. South Africa is the most beautiful country in the world, just stay out of trouble. Get old and die in your bed, weak and feeble, or get taken out a bit sooner with a bit of fight left in you?.

You know what the biggest fear of the Vikings were, the straw death. Lying in you bed and slowly ebbing out.

And as for where to go?

Most of Europe is developing into hell holes of their own. See some pictures from Calais, looks like Beirut, the bad areas of Beirut, mind you!

The irony is that if they were to ever accept themselves for who they are genetically, then they could peacefully co-exist with white people and would better off than they would be if they didn't have white people around. Didn't the blacks living in former Rhodesia learn this the hard way? Aren't they now trying to entice whites to come back to run the farms that were stolen from them because they were literally feeding the continent?